IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No. 406/1999
Judgment reserved on 20.2.2008
Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009
Warrant Officer Amal Raj & Ors. ..... Appellant.
Through: Ms.S Janani, Adv.
Versus
Raj Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh Kanwal Chaudhary Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 3.5.1999
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum to the claimants.
FAO 406/1999 Page 1 of 6
2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:
On 12.4.1989 at about 1:00 am, the deceased Sh. A. L.
Churchill after completing his duty at Oberoi Intercontinental
Hotel, Dr. Zakhir Hussain Marg, N. Delhi was going to his
residence on the motorcycle bearing registration no. DEX 6214.
When he reached at Dhaula Kuan Road, a bus bearing
registration No. DEP 6121 driven in a rash and negligent manner
by respondent no. 1 came on the wrong side with a very fast
speed and hit the said motor cycle. As a result Sh. Churchill fell
on the road and sustained multiple injuries resulting into his
death.
3. A claim petition was filed on 10.5.1989 and an award was
passed on 3.5.1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement
is claimed by way of the present appeal.
4. Ms. S. Janani counsel for the appellants contended that the
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.
750/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and
circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs. 1,200/- per month. It was urged by
the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future
FAO 406/1999 Page 2 of 6
prospects while computing compensation as it failed to
appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in
near future as he was of 20 yrs of age only and would have lived
for another 40-50 yrs had he not met with the accident. The
counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his
untimely death he would have been working in some
international hotel as a steward and would have been earning
much more in the near future. It was also alleged by the counsel
that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates
of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near
future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that
even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence,
the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The
counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses,
loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and
the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased
to the appellants.
5. Per Contra Mr. Kanwal Chaudhry, counsel for respondent
insurance company submitted that there is no illegality in the
impugned award. Counsel further contended that award passed
FAO 406/1999 Page 3 of 6
by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no fault can
be found with the same warranting interference by this court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. As regards income of the deceased, the appellants
claimants had brought on record appointment letter dated
2.2.1988, Ex. PW4/1 as an apprentice on stipend of Rs. 750/- pm
and PW4 Sh. Tajinder Sodhi, Asstt. Personal Manager deposed
that the deceased was earning Rs. 750/- pm. But was also getting
tips which totalled up to Rs. 1200/- pm. He also deposed that had
he not died then he would have been regularised as a regular
steward and would have been earning Rs. 4586/- pm of which Rs.
1950/- pm would have been his basic salary and would have
retired at the age of 58 years. After considering all these factors,
I am of the view that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs. 750/- pm.
8. Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of
the deceased by this court.
9. As regards the future prospects, the tribunal considering the
age of the deceased and looking at the commendable work done
FAO 406/1999 Page 4 of 6
by the deceased during his apprenticeship considered future
prospects of the deceased. Considering that no dispute in this
regard is raised by the respondents, I do not feel inclined to
interfere with the same.
10. On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in
not granting compensation towards loss of love & affection,
funeral expenses, loss of estate and the loss of services, which
were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this
regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is
awarded at Rs. 20,000/-; compensation towards funeral expenses
is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of
estate is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-.
11. As far as the contention pertaining to the awarding of
amount towards mental pain and sufferings caused to the
appellants due to the sudden demise of their only son and the
loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to
the appellants is concerned, I do not feel inclined to award any
amount as compensation towards the same as the same are not
conventional heads of damages.
12. On the basis of the discussion, the total loss of dependency
as assessed by the tribunal comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. After
FAO 406/1999 Page 5 of 6
considering Rs. 40,000/-, which is granted towards non-pecuniary
damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 2,20,000/-.
13. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 2,20,000/- from Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest on
the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the
appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same
proportion as awarded by the tribunal.
14. With the above direction, the present appeal is disposed of.
20.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO 406/1999 Page 6 of 6